From nobody Tue Jun 2 06:01:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633401A00FE for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:00:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YXfsSn8yDimh for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC53F1A00F6 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794d6d000004501-e6-556da9035e92 Received: from ESESSHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9A.94.17665.309AD655; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:00:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [147.214.22.100] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:00:51 +0200 Message-ID: <556DA903.3070009@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:00:51 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier References: <5530E4A8.70300@ericsson.com> <5547FA8B.9000907@tomh.org> <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrS7zytxQg62frSymLprMbPHl6DRm i8a7f5gcmD12zrrL7rFkyU8mjz3XNAKYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyDs/MLDgkUvHm00HmBsZj Al2MnBwSAiYSLzfPYIOwxSQu3FsPZHNxCAkcZZTYOG8RO4SzmlHi/oW/YFW8AtoSx/5OAkpw cLAIqEgs3lgCEmYTsJDYcus+C4gtKhAlMfHrIRaIckGJkzOfgNkiQK2nJjWA2cxA9S377jCD jBEWMJOYPTMRJCwksIpRYvMfQxCbUyBQ4mzTC7BNzAKaEut36UN0yktsfzuHGaJcW2L5sxaW CYyCs5Asm4XQMQtJxwJG5lWMosWpxcW56UbGeqlFmcnFxfl5enmpJZsYgYF7cMtv3R2Mq187 HmIU4GBU4uFV4MsNFWJNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTO69UVEiokkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmD U6qB0a5ElzUqfEpI1o/yqaL/rhXZODwPU/is+/P2Li6mbKbNRV4mezw88wMuxSsxSOb0e1/+ FvX6lsrHFU3sc6T/TMw5yjiza+PEW1v6F/3/P/OZXu4vFnG7hp/ZeWt9ipgiv0UIyIZVBjPH BDyel3K2SzJp1Q8W1WW7Dwn/+lXhdPPSLXmGB8rrlViKMxINtZiLihMBrF3EAz0CAAA= Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:00:59 -0000 Hi Julien, when do you think you will get around to revising the draft per Tom's comments? As you know, the plan is to request the publication of the drafts in the next batch together. Cheers, Gonzalo On 06/05/2015 2:02 AM, Julien Laganier wrote: > Thanks for the review Tom, we will address your WGLC comments ASAP. > > --julien > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo > wrote: >> Thanks for this review as well, Tom. >> >> Julien, Lars, could you please address Tom's comments in a new revision >> of the draft? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 05/05/2015 2:02 AM, Tom Henderson wrote: >>> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >>>> on May 4th: >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/ >>>> >>>> Please, send your comments to this list. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Hipsec mailing list >>>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>>> >>> >>> Here are a few questions/comments on this draft. >>> >>> Technical >>> --------- >>> Section 4.3.3 (including VIA_RVS) seems to conflict with 4.2.3 (VIA_RVS >>> parameter definition). Section 4.3.3 states that VIA_RVS is mandatory >>> if the I1 arrived via a RVS, but 4.2.3 says that the responder MAY >>> choose to send it for debugging purposes. >>> >>> Another point regarding Section 4.2.3: it states that the responder may >>> include "a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of the >>> packets." What use cases are there for including more than a single RVS >>> address (the one that was used)? Would more than one RVS ever need to >>> be traversed between initiator and responder? I don't think the draft >>> supports such security relationships, so perhaps it would be best to >>> explicitly say it is out of scope. >>> >>> Editorial >>> ---------- >>> Section 6 (IANA) needs to be updated to request the new action items of >>> IANA, not the ones previously asked when 5204 was published. >>> Accordingly, IANA is not assigning new Parameter Types but instead this >>> draft should request that IANA update the reference for these three >>> types from 5204 to this document. The same holds for the Registration >>> Type value. >>> >>> - Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From nobody Tue Jun 2 06:02:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020111A0158 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:02:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWvo9l9G4jEh for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF8C01A0145 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:02:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794d6d000004501-94-556da968bff0 Received: from ESESSHC009.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EB.E4.17665.869AD655; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:02:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [147.214.22.100] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:02:32 +0200 Message-ID: <556DA968.7090500@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:02:32 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier References: <5530E4C1.8070509@ericsson.com> <554780D0.9070301@tomh.org> <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7mytxQg7OXWC2mLprMbPHl6DRm i8a7f5gcmD12zrrL7rFkyU8mjz3XNAKYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyXr6+xljwU6zi5bnTjA2M e4S6GDk4JARMJC6+qOli5AQyxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcJRRomP7ckYIZzWjxN2u3WwgVbwC2hJb +hcygtgsAioSj1tug8XZBCwktty6zwJiiwpESUz8eogFol5Q4uTMJ2C2CFDvqUkNYDYzUH3L vjvMILawgJnE9P9vweYICaxhlOjeKwNicwoESnz9t4QV5FBmAU2J9bv0IVrlJba/ncMMUa4t sfxZC8sERsFZSLbNQuiYhaRjASPzKkbR4tTi4tx0I2O91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzA4D245bfu DsbVrx0PMQpwMCrx8Crw5YYKsSaWFVfmHmKU5mBREuf16goJFRJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUkt PsTIxMEp1cBYue56j2OVkNatB6p173OEM+LqUk/++t11xPDn/efTZx8Wv9ByYonWndKMnLTW NM02ycT8plW8fxr8xZJcdicXdjEunXPr7Ps0ju3f7dMthTse7xbn2NW+U/3N25V1LLNn2OyX 27L0rdjbQ6n59w6Gf2LJfsI0tXbT/533hXaLaQtYXBeyNJ+nxFKckWioxVxUnAgAY98pFT8C AAA= Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:02:37 -0000 Hi Julien, same question about this draft. When do you intend to revise it? Cheers, Gonzalo On 06/05/2015 2:09 AM, Julien Laganier wrote: > Thanks for the review Tom, I will address your WGLC comments ASAP. > > --julien > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo > wrote: >> Thanks for the review, Tom. >> >> Julien, could you please look into Tom's comments and address them in a >> new revision of the draft? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >>> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >>>> on May 4th: >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/ >>>> >>>> Please, send your comments to this list. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>> >>> I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments. >>> >>> (possibly) technical >>> -------------------- >>> >>> RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but >>> this document only mentions ECDSA. For alignment with RFC 7401, I >>> suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as >>> appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same codepoint). >>> >>> I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any? If >>> there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records >>> may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly >>> reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records). >>> >>> The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a >>> host wants to register more than one host identity. I suggest something >>> along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a >>> single name. It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a >>> host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned. >>> The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or >>> may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is >>> associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present." >>> >>> editorial >>> --------- >>> >>> IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we >>> are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code >>> should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification." and "this >>> document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and >>> ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR." >>> >>> Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with >>> "degenerate". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From nobody Tue Jun 2 12:48:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BAD1B2BF8 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WR9WzCXNpf0f for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout24.cac.washington.edu (mxout24.cac.washington.edu [140.142.234.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA3B1B2C00 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (hymn04.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.72]) by mxout24.cac.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id t52JjOc5028293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:25 -0700 Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id t52JjKCI031233 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:20 -0700 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 10745@localhost) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id t52JjKpO031226 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:20 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn04.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:45:20 PDT Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Henderson To: hipsec@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 6.1.0.2415318, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.6.2.193315 X-PMX-Server: mxout24.cac.washington.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report=' TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_PATH 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 19:48:06 -0000 I discovered recently that my email this year to the HIPSEC list has not been making it to the list, and I haven't been able to resolve the issue, so I will start to send from a different address. Below, please find some comments on the RFC5203-bis draft that I sent on May 11. - Tom On 04/24/2015 03:09 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end > on May 11th: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/ > > Please, send your comments to this list. Gonzalo and Julien, I had a fresh read of this document and it looks ready, aside from the following small comments. - Tom p.3 s/registration type implicated/registration type requested/ p.4 "A host that is capable and willing to act as a registrar SHOULD include a REG_INFO parameter in the R1 packets it sends during all base exchanges." Shouldn't this be constrained to include REG_INFO only to those hosts to which it wants to offer services (i.e. it may not offer such services to all peers that it talks to)? p.4 s/unfeasible/infeasible p.9 what is the purpose of including minimum and maximum lifetime in the REG_INFO, when it can be seemingly disregarded by the registrar? The requester MUST be prepared to receive any registration lifetime, including ones beyond the minimum and maximum lifetime indicated in the REG_INFO parameter. It MUST NOT expect that the returned lifetime will be the requested one, even when the requested lifetime falls within the announced minimum and maximum. wouldn't it be easier to just have the requester just submit its request, and accept whatever the registrar gives it (which it has to do anyway)? Else, please clarify what a requester should do with the min/max provided by the REG_INFO. p.11 In the IANA section, I think that you want to instead request that IANA replace references to RFC 5203 to with references to this document, and to allocate two new Registration Failure Type codes for these new ones: [TBD-IANA] Insufficient resources [TBD-IANA] Invalid certificate From nobody Wed Jun 10 17:32:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED0F1B2CEE for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:32:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id riGrfIvhcCnZ for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x22c.google.com (mail-yk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B11B1B2D5C for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykaz81 with SMTP id z81so3479273yka.3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:31:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/n2YEY5c6OISkOnI6KJF82ZFWfAd00ty7VRbes+6tq8=; b=HgQBSAqsOo/dwm9d45/CeWxMT2zyFbeBECYzvLKQFuI1MOO/zt+NYlx/MRKyVyIMGM xWBobg7zsqxcXtdLAZyXdAPFTDn0wizrV2ure3bkhJRvyYBbN1P2MPK6QBEROsFO3QNh J9/t0gajlvRo1BS1BzV0GbtFhG7t8ZLMmruWWIXprShP6mQndpNfLB3AZ8kZKJGa5VvQ 1iUzc3BPAPb/HWSTLfZJx6LbGayvl9HyBaDtZJ2waQT9uLfW2fzTaSB95J6YCQDEdsYd mRKLv3P1dhbrB4X9ilt2nNGvFeFqPKAmxOu5BSJf8N9+Ty7PxgRCdSIOy5EN42YQ1eFz ydaA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.78.132 with SMTP id c126mr7829800ywb.162.1433982686613; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:31:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:31:26 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Tom Henderson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:32:38 -0000 Hi Tom, Thank you for the WGLC review. Please see inline the proposed resolution of your WGLC comments. --julien On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: > I discovered recently that my email this year to the HIPSEC list has not been making it to the list, and I haven't been able to resolve the issue, so I will start to send from a different address. > > Below, please find some comments on the RFC5203-bis draft that I sent on May 11. > > - Tom > > On 04/24/2015 03:09 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >> on May 11th: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/ >> >> Please, send your comments to this list. > > Gonzalo and Julien, I had a fresh read of this document and it looks > ready, aside from the following small comments. > > - Tom > > p.3 s/registration type implicated/registration type requested/ done. > p.4 "A host that is capable and willing to act as a registrar SHOULD > include a REG_INFO parameter in the R1 packets it sends during all > base exchanges." Shouldn't this be constrained to include REG_INFO > only to those hosts to which it wants to offer services (i.e. it may not > offer such services to all peers that it talks to)? Makes sense. I have adjusted the text to read: A host that is capable and willing to act as a registrar vis-a-vis a specific requester SHOULD include a REG_INFO parameter in the R1 packets it sends during all base exchanges with that requester. > p.4 s/unfeasible/infeasible done. > p.9 what is the purpose of including minimum and maximum lifetime in > the REG_INFO, when it can be seemingly disregarded by the registrar? > > The requester MUST be prepared to receive any registration lifetime, > including ones beyond the minimum and maximum lifetime indicated in > the REG_INFO parameter. It MUST NOT expect that the returned > lifetime will be the requested one, even when the requested lifetime > falls within the announced minimum and maximum. > > wouldn't it be easier to just have the requester just submit its > request, and accept whatever the registrar gives it (which it has to do > anyway)? Else, please clarify what a requester should do with the > min/max provided by the REG_INFO. The min/max lifetime in the the REG_INFO are offered by the registrar to the requester as guidance w.r.t. to the interval of lifetimes that are currently acceptable to the registrar. The provision that the requester be prepared to deal with a registration lifetime that is not within the previously advertized interval makes the protocol robust against a change of the acceptable interval between its advertisement in REG_INFO and the registration being requested and granted in REG_REQ/RESP exchange. I've added to the REG_INFO parameter description the following paragraph to clarify what the requester should do with these values. The registrar indicates the minimum and maximum registration lifetime that it is willing to offer to a requester. A requester SHOULD NOT request registration with lifetime greater than the maximum registration lifetime or smaller than the minimum registration lifetime. > p.11 In the IANA section, I think that you want to instead request that > IANA replace references to RFC 5203 to with references to this document, > and to allocate two new Registration Failure Type codes for these new ones: > > [TBD-IANA] Insufficient resources > [TBD-IANA] Invalid certificate done: This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameters Types by replacing references to [RFC5203] by references to this document. This document also updates the registry for registration failure types by making the following failure type definitions and reservations: Failure Type Reason ------------ -------------------------------------------- [TBD-IANA] Insufficient resources [TBD-IANA] Invalid certificate From nobody Wed Jun 10 18:08:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9361A0404 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KLfYIdV8VCm for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x22b.google.com (mail-yk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52F2E1A0377 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykfl8 with SMTP id l8so30779924ykf.1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+jRk4uS5pYezOwxeUWmkBZ1QklJtfb/nuCwwdaA19ts=; b=FKdMAzbMBZQ768LLruK0gSSp4guwAk1SL6F/zGyFhIgfJRn+f/L3tJfGfoWJGjUyLU 7l0R3UGcWpk3uJtjdya5VGzZ8fTCrHfkDGugpsOjVZ9QWnYVdx+KllKYjSl4op3Vfema SteJq/7t2mb5W1XpmyoEgePwKZKpCEuTBAh4EQVP8RQWanYwn/Oq4PXnqSFn4Q9MHVM7 8MjdZYlkYrvKXXmhjLOa72KRPSn7ZQx2GF+67lGIA3pySQKy5lgeA//n2L6QWArHzoE4 RvEfpf5CtV8MWEoFIdlZcUhEehMV0DT6nTxRs3GqWiEeROIBAxTHHHwuMgJdUa2Fq+75 sJNA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.137.129 with SMTP id z123mr7728942ywf.145.1433984901640; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com> References: <5530E4A8.70300@ericsson.com> <5547FA8B.9000907@tomh.org> <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:08:24 -0000 Hi Tom, Thank for the review. Please see inline below the proposed resolution for your WGLC comments. --julien > On 05/05/2015 2:02 AM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >>> on May 4th: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/ >>> >>> Please, send your comments to this list. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>> >> >> Here are a few questions/comments on this draft. >> >> Technical >> --------- >> Section 4.3.3 (including VIA_RVS) seems to conflict with 4.2.3 (VIA_RVS >> parameter definition). Section 4.3.3 states that VIA_RVS is mandatory >> if the I1 arrived via a RVS, but 4.2.3 says that the responder MAY >> choose to send it for debugging purposes. I have made it mandatory everywhere. >> Another point regarding Section 4.2.3: it states that the responder may >> include "a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of the >> packets." What use cases are there for including more than a single RVS >> address (the one that was used)? Would more than one RVS ever need to >> be traversed between initiator and responder? I don't think the draft >> supports such security relationships, so perhaps it would be best to >> explicitly say it is out of scope. I've added a disclaimer than including more than one RVS IP address is out of scope. The paragraph in 4.2.4 now reads: After the responder receives a relayed I1 packet, it can begin to send HIP packets addressed to the initiator's IP address, without further assistance from an RVS. For debugging purposes, it MUST append a newly created VIA_RVS parameter at the end of the R1 packet that contains the IP address of the RVS that relayed the I1 packet. Including more than one IP address in the VIA_RVS parameter is outside the scope of this specification. The main goal of using the VIA_RVS parameter is to allow operators to diagnose possible issues encountered while establishing a HIP association via an RVS. >> Editorial >> ---------- >> Section 6 (IANA) needs to be updated to request the new action items of >> IANA, not the ones previously asked when 5204 was published. >> Accordingly, IANA is not assigning new Parameter Types but instead this >> draft should request that IANA update the reference for these three >> types from 5204 to this document. The same holds for the Registration >> Type value. done. IANA sec. now reads: This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameters Types by replacing references to [RFC5204] by references to this document. From nobody Wed Jun 10 18:44:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F94E1A873B for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwJL5Q7yMBkE for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x230.google.com (mail-yh0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F2C1A000B for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhak3 with SMTP id k3so27476256yha.2 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Usl1cX3fv8/hk+E78LYT0PV8K4JrYO5pskniYuItkr8=; b=NlSyHftX3D/W6x3zwTW34QLh0TXdAYBJwFjpTj0JRdqIf+uFqv3HiitzP6ZMxtif/v lAU4pN2zJ2MTYAPGFWsRTsduJJTF85LnFFc8QfB6tTWjJEK5YXNyBJg3rveOXyODmQIT 7LYYvZ3+ZkksLAS1wyMpOOMRwcaRwIPEVSYETTwV1fBY40khdcCeVhokY2IirOLck1lU mlvgnwTDXg87dq5BqPvXS9x+JFI9BLcUhO2j+xNYycwZTczH+9SAvbCUV6j7CCe7NtJy 4gG/ZDmFy7BlzAAYwURIBrtwZLOOGA3wCxQGNSgBO0CKP5umCfSJTXz3Mw/xKnNxPB+7 NuJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.137.129 with SMTP id z123mr7870262ywf.145.1433987068452; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com> References: <5530E4C1.8070509@ericsson.com> <554780D0.9070301@tomh.org> <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:28 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:44:35 -0000 Hi Tom, Thank you for you review. Please see inline below the proposed resolution of your WGLC comments. --julien > On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >>> on May 4th: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/ >>> >>> Please, send your comments to this list. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >> >> I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments. >> >> (possibly) technical >> -------------------- >> >> RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but >> this document only mentions ECDSA. For alignment with RFC 7401, I >> suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as >> appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same code point). The HIP DNS support re-uses the existing DNS KEY RR encoding for ECDSA, however AFAIK there is no DNS KEY RR encoding for ECDSA_LOW. Also, since presumably ECDSA_LOW support is present in RFC 7401 for tightly constrained device, and given that it isn't immediately clear whether such tightly constrained device would use the DNS at all to resolve HIP information of their peer, at this time I'd rather keep ECDSA_LOW out-of-scope for this specification. >> I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any? If >> there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records >> may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly >> reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records). I've clarified the TTL handling of the HIP resource records by adding the following paragraph to sec 4.2: The HIP resource records have a Time To Live (TTL) associated with them. When the number of seconds that passed since the record was retrieved exceeds the record's TTL, the record MUST be considered to be no longer valid and deleted by the entiry that retrieved it. If access to the record is necessary to initiate communication with the entity to which the record corresponds, a new query MUST be be made to retrieve a fresh copy of the record. >> The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a >> host wants to register more than one host identity. I suggest something >> along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a >> single name. It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a >> host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned. >> The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or >> may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is >> associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present." Thanks, I've added the text you proposed to sec. 4.2 but I've used MUST instead of SHOULD. >> editorial >> --------- >> >> IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we >> are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code >> should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification." and "this >> document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and >> ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR." Done. The IANA considerations has been update and now reads: 9. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to replace references to [RFC5205] by references to this document in the the DNS RR type code registry. IANA is requested to allocate the following algorithm type in the IPSECKEY RR [RFC4025] registry: [IANA-TBD] is ECDSA >> Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with >> "degenerate". done. From nobody Wed Jun 10 18:50:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6848B1A877E; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WEnH2Cd-GQwx; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D971A8782; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150611015024.9792.11577.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:24 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:50:26 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension Authors : Julien Laganier Lars Eggert Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2015-06-10 Abstract: This document specifies a registration mechanism for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) that allows hosts to register with services, such as HIP rendezvous servers or middleboxes. This document obsoletes RFC5203. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Jun 10 18:50:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D6C1A8846; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h62CsbnbHK8y; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4061A87E0; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150611015032.17298.27128.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:32 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:50:38 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension Authors : Julien Laganier Lars Eggert Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2015-06-10 Abstract: This document defines a rendezvous extension for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). The rendezvous extension extends HIP and the HIP registration extension for initiating communication between HIP nodes via HIP rendezvous servers. Rendezvous servers improve reachability and operation when HIP nodes are multi-homed or mobile. This document obsoletes RFC5204. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Jun 10 18:51:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D3A1A87DF; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uGywTJ6rWEOB; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A841A88D4; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150611015046.9764.50295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:50:46 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:51:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extension Author : Julien Laganier Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2015-06-10 Abstract: This document specifies a new resource record (RR) for the Domain Name System (DNS), and how to use it with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). This RR allows a HIP node to store in the DNS its Host Identity (HI, the public component of the node public-private key pair), Host Identity Tag (HIT, a truncated hash of its public key), and the Domain Names of its rendezvous servers (RVSs). This document obsoletes RFC5205. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Jun 10 21:18:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD46D1A035F for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KyTCHhwI7ajR for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (mxout21.s.uw.edu [140.142.32.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 403E91A902C for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.110]) by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id t5B4HVqS004220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:31 -0700 Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id t5B4HTP1004851; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:29 -0700 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 11750@localhost) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id t5B4HTPB004845; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:29 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:29 PDT Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Henderson To: julien.ietf@gmail.com Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.6.11.40916 X-PMX-Server: mxout21.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' MULTIPLE_RCPTS 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_100_199 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, SMALL_BODY 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC comments X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:18:34 -0000 Hi Julien, I read through all of your responses to my comments on 5203-bis, 5204-bis, and 5205-bis, and agree with your handling of them. Thanks, Tom From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:25:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA8D1B29DA for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JOvddqm0Ttwy for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22d.google.com (mail-yh0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 518C81B29EA for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhid80 with SMTP id d80so3068921yhi.1 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5d8VDBY73LEgllVRxsTswvMm/+EZGGuQqbPXYHrq5M4=; b=qpSetuUZNXc0OQYTiV7yDzczfUbXbSJvmM/vF3p5Xh19lDeWVF0zNZP+Bn0N5tKXS6 0P6FuAmkbW7qJFNdWIDeFPKUAOCWpuq6diErY/nh/stYcBVvp2RnySZ6BZLdaYmeagnL aweWpQg3SRXgmQfmzkLuxHlHGXK9UJe0aUKivTw7hCHKALaTLZXHQbhtf6ZTM7E5LftR GWWdfYW6RLN8bHRk4nKkBykGwToUHEnV5KeXOMy0KC8uKqJzQBhTbg1YT4pznaCKkYty gTeGiM7ndE2zWmsejpOMt8lTMYlp22FJvD86GYmgxdPmvQBI8Ul+VSzopuzAVMoveZhI O3RA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.13.219.198 with SMTP id d189mr11953992ywe.171.1434032730549; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Tom Henderson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC comments X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:25:38 -0000 Thank you for the quick follow-up, Tom! Gonzalo, I believe all WGLC comments have been addresses at this point. --julien On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: > Hi Julien, I read through all of your responses to my comments on 5203-bis, 5204-bis, and 5205-bis, and agree with your handling of them. > > Thanks, > Tom > From nobody Thu Jun 11 17:08:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F601B34DD for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:08:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xUYyosENzoQA for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (mxout21.s.uw.edu [140.142.32.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BE321B34DA for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.110]) by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id t5C070Iv017886 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:07:00 -0700 Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id t5C06uNb000617; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:06:56 -0700 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 11750@localhost) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id t5C06uT1000614; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:06:56 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:06:56 PDT Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Henderson To: hipsec@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.6.11.235717 X-PMX-Server: mxout21.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_10_99 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, SMALL_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_START 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] test message X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:08:15 -0000 Test message; please ignore. From nobody Fri Jun 12 06:07:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B61B1A9060 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:07:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wiAntiub5XBv for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 337401A9106 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:07:30 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794d6d000004501-4f-557ad990007f Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4B.35.17665.099DA755; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:07:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.126.175] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:07:27 +0200 Message-ID: <557AD98F.2060106@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:07:27 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier , Tom Henderson References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6Em1WhBjf+KVlMXTSZ2eLL0WnM FjPPH2RzYPbYOesuu8eSJT+ZPFquxwQwR3HZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlnFr0ibngKUvF+4+PGRsY HzN3MXJySAiYSFxc94AFwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMBRRon7O68zQzhrGSVu758P1sEroC2xfvZE VhCbRUBV4tKjG2A2m4CFxJZb98EmiQpESUz8eogFol5Q4uTMJ2C2iEC4xL67X8HmMAtISizf 9IsNxBYWkJK4Pa8balkvo8TfWdvBijgFAiXO3j7G2MXIAdSgKbF+lz5Er7zE9rdzwEqEgO5Z /qyFZQKj4Cwk62YhdMxC0rGAkXkVo2hxanFxbrqRsV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkmRmAAH9zyW3cH 4+rXjocYBTgYlXh4FWyrQoVYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ887YnBcqJJCeWJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8 iJGJg1OqgZHZ2raH071+ssfmvx1V06ziAubIc25n2jFlo1Q3152ZnWF30iMbfOekiZUnWVxf wXchM/VpX2nD+twb1lXawcezrDjWCSQt6mrW1fsnGsgiqZERLbu1vzFzKS+PucrGDSnyVa9b bq79MPlOnlKbvKnnhpxzXpadf3sX7vSUftxh98SlvV1JiaU4I9FQi7moOBEABanzXkECAAA= Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC comments X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:07:33 -0000 Thanks for revising the drafts, Julien. I will prepare the PROTO writeups in order to start the "publication request" process for this batch. Cheers, Gonzalo On 11/06/2015 5:25 PM, Julien Laganier wrote: > Thank you for the quick follow-up, Tom! > > Gonzalo, I believe all WGLC comments have been addresses at this point. > > --julien > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> Hi Julien, I read through all of your responses to my comments on 5203-bis, 5204-bis, and 5205-bis, and agree with your handling of them. >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> From nobody Fri Jun 19 00:06:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209401A6F3B for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:06:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ZVZpJOnHLjN for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB63B1A6F39 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:06:42 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79b66d000001131-ef-5583bf80290a Received: from ESESSHC010.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 18.CF.04401.08FB3855; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:06:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.126.2] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:06:39 +0200 Message-ID: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:06:40 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrKJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7D/uZQg+NXTC2mLprM7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujA0dC9gL5rBVPOnfz9jAOI21i5GTQ0LARGLl8h1MELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hASOMkpcnDuRBcJZzShx/MF6oCoODl4BbYkTf5NAGlgEVCV+nXrMDGKzCVhIbLl1 nwXEFhWIkpj49RCYzSsgKHFy5hMwW0RAUqLn7lIwW1hAT2Jj+3d2kJHMApoS63fpg4SZBeQl mrfOBhspBLRp+bMWlgmMfLOQTJqF0DELSccCRuZVjKLFqcVJuelGxnqpRZnJxcX5eXp5qSWb GIHhdHDLb9UdjJffOB5iFOBgVOLhVVBrChViTSwrrsw9xCjNwaIkzjtjc16okEB6Yklqdmpq QWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBkYNRb9ZGRdP1so8cinturFh/72o/nXhvZn3eGziFgaomJy+wbfX 1iMuQ/tWzqcu5y/n5y6trvrOcqTQg+3kDpsHjgeecJ3wmikv8FzB8W7KZmOW/Wa2xcVvTwvc 8Uzt+hr//UFH14cPdgqq1plrSnPf305/spi36khTG+sJtdMRlcc/MWo43VJiKc5INNRiLipO BAAwmTuDCAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:06:45 -0000 Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis, the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis, and RFC5205bis). Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on your plans to revise this document? Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated reference? draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401 Thanks, Gonzalo From nobody Tue Jun 23 01:15:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36BD1A908A for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:15:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dTYxkZl4tvGz for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.ipv6.otaverkko.fi [IPv6:2a02:4880:10:1000::2:25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08D141A9085 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.214.166.182] (whx-12.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.166.182]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABC1423891 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:04 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:04 +0300 From: Samu Varjonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:15:15 -0000 Hi all, yes, we will update the document as soon as possible. BR, Samu Varjonen On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis, > > the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3 > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 > > RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that > it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a > normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the > publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis, > and RFC5205bis). > > Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on > your plans to revise this document? > > Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated > reference? > > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401 > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From nobody Tue Jun 23 05:36:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EED51A0054; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44iCr7PkqvcQ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43A61A008A; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:36:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150623123619.10612.21080.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:36:19 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:36:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol Architecture Authors : Robert Moskowitz Miika Komu Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2015-06-23 Abstract: This memo describes a new namespace, the Host Identity namespace, and a new protocol layer, the Host Identity Protocol, between the internetworking and transport layers. Herein are presented the basics of the current namespaces, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a new namespace will add completeness to them. The roles of this new namespace in the protocols are defined. This document obsoletes RFC 4423 and addresses the concerns raised by the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility. It incorporates lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201 and goes further to explain how HIP works as a secure signaling channel. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Jun 23 05:39:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC331A0049 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:39:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ef5_27D4EzZ for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 926F21A007B for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mannerheim.cs.hut.fi [130.233.193.8]) by mail.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id B711A193A6 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:39:53 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <55895399.4080807@cs.hut.fi> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:39:53 +0300 From: Miika Komu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <20150623123619.10612.21080.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150623123619.10612.21080.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:39:58 -0000 FYI, I just changed the affiliation of me and Robert. On 06/23/2015 03:36 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Host Identity Protocol Architecture > Authors : Robert Moskowitz > Miika Komu > Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12.txt > Pages : 39 > Date : 2015-06-23 > > Abstract: > This memo describes a new namespace, the Host Identity namespace, and > a new protocol layer, the Host Identity Protocol, between the > internetworking and transport layers. Herein are presented the > basics of the current namespaces, their strengths and weaknesses, and > how a new namespace will add completeness to them. The roles of this > new namespace in the protocols are defined. > > This document obsoletes RFC 4423 and addresses the concerns raised by > the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility. It incorporates > lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201 and goes further > to explain how HIP works as a secure signaling channel. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From nobody Sun Jun 28 09:51:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA94C1ACEFA for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rn7ge9LAuUSO for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B0861ACEF9 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiwl6 with SMTP id l6so80724020wiw.0 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=sPSND/TQtd8zfEWoidx0cbX43W8T3cFaDEC9C6JaTao=; b=NA1gsY8xfFVgFCOrzPuIBpOvQOLdcYuoJHr73C2Xv9MEx4a9mqbTitEB23GQ4Jd5T3 /+vhpnNX8E83sI82d06aCKNRRwJvZU3Jgs1FZ7rc02WgZaZD4LKXrZswbVvd4TA3b03D fdIZKzgnAo768t8e1O9Y4wloBV0sxmTw58daBklIseCeJYOfp5jyFi2dVQlg9+y4dTq7 uLJ0IRFjsVEmpjGUxvw+iXQx1bpUABRHN6hxJ+WPPQapPBZVFDTYTbw1ZmVL4Sdfhliz THdRnvV1njSKaSUAxeoDbbqppViGFGTj3zNevvIruVyn6/nw+a6Y8MmncpTfa1OUlfB/ yG6A== X-Received: by 10.180.189.209 with SMTP id gk17mr14498906wic.93.1435510307908; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.62.13 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:51:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Darren Lissimore Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:51:08 -0600 Message-ID: To: hipsec@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34ef6f97270051996c954 Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] Minor correction to rfc7401 4.4.4 state machine X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:51:50 -0000 --001a11c34ef6f97270051996c954 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey all; Read through 7401, got to section 4.4.4 =E2=80=8Bpage 36. There's an error in the transition from I1-SENT to I2-SENT =E2=80=8B.=E2=80=8B The draft has it as recv R2, send I2 and =E2=80=8Bit =E2=80=8B should be =E2=80=8Bprobably be =E2=80=8B recv R1, send I2 =E2=80=8Bas per Table 3 page 29 "recevie r1, process" trigger. =E2=80=8BDarren Lissimore ----------------------------------------------------------- =E2=80=8Bwww.darrenlissimore.com Skype: darrenlissimore ----------------------------------------------------------- --001a11c34ef6f97270051996c954 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey= all;=C2=A0
Read through 7401, got to section 4.4.4
=E2=80=8Bpage 36.=C2=A0
There's an error in the transition from I1-SENT to I2-SENT<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small;display:inline">=E2=80= =8B.=E2=80=8B
The draft has it as =C2=A0recv R2, send I2 an= d
=E2= =80=8Bit =E2=80=8B
should be
=E2=80=8Bprobably be =E2=80=8B
recv R1, s= end I2=C2=A0
=E2=80=8Bas per Table 3 page 29 =C2=A0 "recevie r1, process" t= rigger.

=E2=80=8BDarren Lissimore
-------------------------= ----------------------------------
=

--001a11c34ef6f97270051996c954-- From nobody Mon Jun 29 00:17:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEDAC1A1EEE; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:17:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l_GyECmo0tB7; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C691A1EED; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:17:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150629071748.19448.85979.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:17:48 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:17:50 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol Certificates Authors : Tobias Heer Samu Varjonen Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-02.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2015-06-29 Abstract: The Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital certificates. It is used for carrying these certificates in Host Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets. This document specifies the certificate parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed verification. Additionally, this document specifies the representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates. The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or failed verification, are specific to the scenario in which the certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario- specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT parameter. This document extends [RFC7401]. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Jun 29 13:23:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1ABC1B33D6 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:23:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0uI5fQtT5E1U for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu (mxout25.s.uw.edu [140.142.234.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DED881B33C4 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (hymn03.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.111]) by mxout25.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id t5TKKmZ8011607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:20:49 -0700 Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id t5TKKjaT019725 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:20:45 -0700 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 15833@localhost) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id t5TKKitE019722 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:20:44 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn03.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:20:44 PDT Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:20:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Henderson To: hipsec@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1903399159-2101333380-1435609244=:12333" X-PMX-Version: 6.1.0.2415318, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.6.29.201216 X-PMX-Server: mxout25.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report=' TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, MIME_TEXT_ONLY_MP_MIXED 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_800_899 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, SMALL_BODY 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HIGHBITS 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Minor correction to rfc7401 4.4.4 state machine X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:23:31 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1903399159-2101333380-1435609244=:12333 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On 06/28/2015 09:51 AM, Darren Lissimore wrote:> Hey all; > > Read through 7401, got to section 4.4.4 > ​page 36. > There's an error in the transition from I1-SENT to I2-SENT > ​.​ > The draft has it as recv R2, send I2 and > ​it ​ > should be > ​probably be ​ > recv R1, send I2 > ​as per Table 3 page 29 "recevie r1, process" trigger. > > ​Darren Lissimore Hi Darren, I agree that is an error; I don't know how it crept in there. Gonzalo, should we follow an errata process for this? - Tom ---1903399159-2101333380-1435609244=:12333-- From nobody Mon Jun 29 13:36:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151951B3408 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XBrILBsAad0D for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193851B3416 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79176d00000321c-73-5591ac3b4e69 Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 89.E2.12828.B3CA1955; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.126.100] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:10 +0200 Message-ID: <5591AC3A.4070903@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:36:10 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Henderson , References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja71momhBn3zpS2mLprMbDHz/EE2 ByaPJUt+Mnm0XI8JYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyjiwaiNTwV62ihXrlrI3MP5h6WLk5JAQMJHY c3whG4QtJnHh3nogm4tDSOAoo8S5B7NYIZy1jBKL185gBqniFdCWWHn3GZDNwcEioCrxaIci SJhNwEJiy637YENFBaIkJn49xAJRLihxcuYTFpByEQF7iZlL60HCwgKuEue2n2MCsYUEPCUm f70EZnMKeEns/feSHcRmFtCUaN3+G8qWl2jeOpsZol5bYvmzFpYJjAKzkGyYhaRlFpKWBYzM qxhFi1OLi3PTjYz1Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECQ/Lglt+6OxhXv3Y8xCjAwajEw5uQNyFUiDWx rLgy9xCjNAeLkjjvjM15oUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYBRS3abjMFWNNEFzz 9H7T3VdOqhEvnmkdDTny6mPg/R/RwUViNwVtt7axlZRsqO4WnVyqOffy4kO7Th+cw2ch/f1S j/jFJZN8xPa+WryxNOOAZfk/TsX5OoUij2dvENrym/1jWd/+JxGODnvsjj/OvJQmuL+e4V5Q l7bcpw6PpTEXJFXtJbO/KLEUZyQaajEXFScCAJQfQ6gqAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Minor correction to rfc7401 4.4.4 state machine X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:36:30 -0000 Yes, please log an erratum. Thanks, Gonzalo On 29/06/2015 11:20 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: > > > On 06/28/2015 09:51 AM, Darren Lissimore wrote:> Hey all; >> >> Read through 7401, got to section 4.4.4 >> ​page 36. >> There's an error in the transition from I1-SENT to I2-SENT >> ​.​ >> The draft has it as recv R2, send I2 and >> ​it ​ >> should be >> ​probably be ​ >> recv R1, send I2 >> ​as per Table 3 page 29 "recevie r1, process" trigger. >> >> ​Darren Lissimore > > Hi Darren, I agree that is an error; I don't know how it crept in there. > > Gonzalo, should we follow an errata process for this? > > - Tom > > > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From nobody Tue Jun 30 00:10:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E5B1B3723 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:10:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tXWA0imDFFLe for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C43231B3722 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:10:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79046d000007f53-48-559240cb2f2e Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F4.59.32595.BC042955; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:10:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.126.100] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:10:03 +0200 Message-ID: <559240CB.9050005@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:10:03 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samu Varjonen , References: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi> In-Reply-To: <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje5ph0mhBp/v6VlMXTSZ2eLGzxns Dkwe/Sv3s3ssWfKTKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStjz1KRgoW8FZ8mfWRpYHzH1cXIySEhYCJx 6PhhNghbTOLCvfVgtpDAUUaJtm8uXYxcQPZaRonp0+6zgiR4BbQlZs99zwRiswioSkyb+xCs gU3AQmLLrfssILaoQJTExK+HWCDqBSVOznwCZosIOEis+9/E3sXIwSEsYC0x+0smiCkk4CGx e4kOSAWngKbEpuUQncwCBhJHFs1hhbDlJba/ncMMcZq2xPJnLSwTGAVmIVkwC0nLLCQtCxiZ VzGKFqcWJ+WmGxnrpRZlJhcX5+fp5aWWbGIEBuTBLb9VdzBefuN4iFGAg1GJh1fhx8RQIdbE suLK3EOM0hwsSuK8MzbnhQoJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpgtJUv9+DemGPexF/L IJn5x+UG604//ZSHvw/OMPuwU3fKqp3WokX98jGbhXKtzmTetXvz8Emh5ev6W17vpD0tuzlk d1hlfuJOZfGbp+tUWXJSWX6losa9G1ZtM15dYZ55NdrlVfdOvuuSilcec8xctM4m4+XjQwW1 4jMbJW16Evv9czJ7Vi1SYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAbYgCyykCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:10:07 -0000 Hi Samu, thanks for having revised RFC6253bis: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ Could you please let us know the current status of the draft now that it has been revised? That is, what needs to happen next and what is needed overall before the draft is ready for WGLC. Cheers, Gonzalo On 23/06/2015 11:15 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote: > Hi all, > > yes, we will update the document as soon as possible. > > BR, > Samu Varjonen > > On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis, >> >> the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3 >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 >> >> RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that >> it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a >> normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the >> publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis, >> and RFC5205bis). >> >> Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on >> your plans to revise this document? >> >> Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated >> reference? >> >> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401 >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > > From nobody Tue Jun 30 04:09:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E31A1A885F; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:09:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O4ZRnwgwLFx2; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2601B1A8855; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:09:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150630110932.17738.84346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:09:32 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:09:34 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension Authors : Julien Laganier Lars Eggert Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2015-06-30 Abstract: This document specifies a registration mechanism for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) that allows hosts to register with services, such as HIP rendezvous servers or middleboxes. This document obsoletes RFC5203. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Jun 30 23:15:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAF31ACE28 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:15:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d2cuqAmX3bBf for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AD191AD04E for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (62-78-245-228.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.78.245.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t616EqhL000513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:14:53 +0300 Message-ID: <5593855C.4070002@helsinki.fi> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:14:52 +0300 From: Samu Varjonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gonzalo Camarillo , hipsec@ietf.org References: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi> <559240CB.9050005@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <559240CB.9050005@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 06:15:00 -0000 Hi, to my knowledge rfc6253-bis does not need changes to work with rfc7401. Review and comments would still be welcome. -Samu On 30/06/15 10:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi Samu, > > thanks for having revised RFC6253bis: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ > > Could you please let us know the current status of the draft now that it > has been revised? That is, what needs to happen next and what is needed > overall before the draft is ready for WGLC. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > On 23/06/2015 11:15 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> yes, we will update the document as soon as possible. >> >> BR, >> Samu Varjonen >> >> On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis, >>> >>> the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis: >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3 >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 >>> >>> RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that >>> it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a >>> normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the >>> publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis, >>> and RFC5205bis). >>> >>> Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on >>> your plans to revise this document? >>> >>> Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated >>> reference? >>> >>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> >> From nobody Tue Jun 30 23:40:03 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD781AD0BA for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:40:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0pGdFKE9orjP for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31AE01AD0BC for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:39:54 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79356d000006281-37-55938b37b58c Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EC.23.25217.73B83955; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 08:39:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.36.61] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 08:39:51 +0200 Message-ID: <55938B37.4050905@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:39:51 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samu Varjonen , References: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi> <559240CB.9050005@ericsson.com> <5593855C.4070002@helsinki.fi> In-Reply-To: <5593855C.4070002@helsinki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja5F9+RQg1kLuC2mLprMbHHj5wx2 ByaP/pX72T2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJWx7vtTxoIpghWr1hc1MDbxdTFyckgImEjM fL6OEcIWk7hwbz0biC0kcJRR4tNG5i5GLiB7FaNE5/lHYAleAW2Jhbt3M4PYLAIqEleXTAaz 2QQsJLbcus8CYosKRElM/HqIBaJeUOLkzCdgtoiAg8S6/03sXYwcHMIC1hKzv2RCzG9nlHjx dxM7SA0n0PzPk64xgdjMAgYSRxbNYYWw5SW2v53DDHGctsTyZy0sExgFZiFZMQtJyywkLQsY mVcxihanFhfnphsZ6aUWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBAblwS2/rXYwHnzueIhRgINRiYd3gefkUCHW xLLiytxDjNIcLErivDM254UKCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYEyKOCqp65KWtHP2 8efxFgplZ85NN7VTvGTWlPpfNX1ik9WH9IConJ1Geldk/xge0K9++loyYm6t4Ze3C5449OYf mSfePnWWXnjofD4bVv1gr1NHT0o2Pj2xfqr0ei6LgBPNz2YanXirayIgdvXLNs3zPjGsmS5M bZ/y/ihNnN4268R0zXoBfyWW4oxEQy3mouJEAE8bWEUrAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 06:40:02 -0000 Hi Samu, to be clear, you are saying that the draft is ready for Working Group Last Call, is that right? Thanks, Gonzalo On 01/07/2015 9:14 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote: > Hi, > > to my knowledge rfc6253-bis does not need changes to work with rfc7401. > Review and comments would still be welcome. > > -Samu > > On 30/06/15 10:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi Samu, >> >> thanks for having revised RFC6253bis: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ >> >> Could you please let us know the current status of the draft now that it >> has been revised? That is, what needs to happen next and what is needed >> overall before the draft is ready for WGLC. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 23/06/2015 11:15 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> yes, we will update the document as soon as possible. >>> >>> BR, >>> Samu Varjonen >>> >>> On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>> Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis, >>>> >>>> the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis: >>>> >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3 >>>> >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 >>>> >>>> RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that >>>> it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a >>>> normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the >>>> publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis, >>>> and RFC5205bis). >>>> >>>> Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on >>>> your plans to revise this document? >>>> >>>> Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated >>>> reference? >>>> >>>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Hipsec mailing list >>>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>> >>> >